Why is Hamza Tzortzis wrong? The origins of the universe.
Post 2
The argument is that Islam makes sense of the origins of the universe. Because infinite regressions are irrational, the universe can't have an infinite past and so it must have a beginning. It couldn't have been created by nothing, because it is illogical to assume so, and we have no empirical evidence of the beginning. It cannot have been created by “something created” because it begs the question 'and what created that?', leading to an infinite regression. So it must have been created by something 'uncreated'.
Pretty neat arguments, right? Let's break them.
According to our first post, there are things we cannot assume are true by reason alone. It doesn't follow that, because we can't make sense of infinite regressions, the universe can't be one. Our rational capacities are limited to what natural selection has endowed us. But the universe does indeed have a beginning – we call it the Big Bang – and we know this precisely by empirical evidence, or in other words, by analyzing the universe through the scientific method.
So, if there was a 'creation', then who is the 'creator'? Tzortzis uses elimination process for reaching the conclusion that it is a god beyond nature. Eliminating alternatives could only work if you had a list of all possibilities in the first place. In the context of the question 'what is the cause of the universe?', that list lies well beyond the reach of human brains, and so the argument is lame.
Let's suppose it wasn't, though. Even so, to reach the possibility of a transcendent god, you'd have to assume that the universe could not have been created 'via nothing', which is exactly the direction modern science points to (Tzortzis intuitions carrying no weight on the matter). And it could have been created by 'something else created' and by itself, in means beyond our intuitive logic, but not necessarily beyond the reach of science. You cannot 'deduce' science out of existence.
So far, all that he spoke is false. And he dares call professor Krauss a sophist…
It is quite hard to argue that infinite regression is beyond our instincts. Many philosophers argued that the world had always existed and that is quite familiar to us.
The argument that an infinite regression is impossible is entirely a construction of the philosopher. It is deduced of the concept of infinity that is in itself a concept that deals with something we do not understand. It is that without an end. Then, the philosopher applies it to the beginning and voilá the impossible is now truth.
I think it is rather surprising that the universe did have a "beginning" (lacking a better word).
Now this is a great argument:
The funny thing here is that he who start by stating the importance of deductive reason, offers in his next step a fallacy. If he was indeed a good philosopher, he should know better.
Well, some people say theology is philosophy with one decisive mistake. Although he presents himself as a "Postgrad Student in Philosophy", he's really an apologist. To be philosopher on must replace dogma with freedom of thought. In my view Darwin is a great example of a philosopher, Tzortzis is the antithesis of one.